Don’t forget, Hong Kong is part of China

Canada opposes China’s efforts to impose a new national security law on Hong Kong. Or, to put it in the diplomatese that Ottawa favours, it is “deeply concerned” by Beijing’s plans.

While the details of the proposed law have yet to be revealed, it is expected to take aim at those who want Hong Kong to become more autonomous from China.

Residents of the territory already enjoy more civil liberties than those in the rest of China. Many Hongkongers want that situation to remain.

For Canada to support the would-be democrats of Hong Kong seems a nobrainer. Even Donald Trump has weighed in on the side of the angels here, warning that the U.S. might withdraw the special economic privileges it has granted Hong Kong if Beijing goes ahead with its plans. Canada has said it might do the same.

But nothing is simple in the world of foreign affairs. And while it is fashionable to criticize China these days, it’s worth remembering that when it comes to Hong Kong, Beijing’s arguments are far from crazy.

First, Hong Kong is an integral part of China and has been so since Britain handed over the former colony in 1997.

Under the “one country two systems” formula agreed to by the parties, Britain gave up any claim to sovereignty over the territory while Beijing agreed to maintain, for 50 years, the form of swashbuckling capitalism that had allowed Hong Kong to prosper. This included, among other things, a coherent justice system based on English common law.

Today, critics focus on the “two systems” element of the formula. But in 1997, the “one country” element was equally important. Hong Kong was to be part of China. Period.

Second, Hong Kong has never been democratic. It was not a democracy under the British. It was not democratic after the handover. The chief executive, currently Carrie Lam, is effectively chosen by Beijing. While half of the legislative council is directly elected, the other half is chosen by business and professional groups.

Talks leading to the 1997 handover suggested that the territory would move toward democracy. But they included no mechanism to get there. At the time, these vague references to democracy were seen as a way for Britain to save face without committing either side to anything substantive.

Third, under the terms of the 1997 handover, Chinese laws would not apply to the territory unless the Hong Kong government specifically listed them as doing so. This included national security laws.

But at the same time, the agreement required Hong Kong to enact its own national security law. This law would prohibit treason, sedition and attempts to subvert the central government in Beijing, including the promotion of secession.

Hong Kong’s government attempted to enact such a security law in 2003, but withdrew the bill because it was so unpopular.

This raises the question: Is Beijing flouting the handover agreement by introducing a national security bill? Or is Hong Kong flouting the agreement by not introducing such a bill?

Fourth, in the end the people usually lose. In 1997, the United Kingdom deemed millions of Her Majesty’s loyal subjects in Hong Kong ineligible for British citizenship. Instead, they were issued British National (Overseas) passports that allowed them to visit the U.K. but not live there.

This was designed to forestall a mass exodus of Hongkongers fleeing communism.

This time, the U.K. is contemplating a plan that would make it marginally easier for 2.9 million potential BNO passport holders in Hong Kong to become British citizens. But there are no guarantees.

By contrast, the roughly 300,000 Canadian citizens living in Hong Kong have the right to return home if things there get too dicey.

Up to now, the government in Beijing has shown an unusual degree of forbearance toward the often violent antiregime street protests in Hong Kong. Don’t expect that to last. China is, after all, one country.